U.S. Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Patent Trolls

Anonymous Coward writes "Forbes is reporting that the Supreme Court has just limited the power of patent trolls to obtain permanent injunctions against infringers as a matter of course. The court has ruled that the principles of equity apply, meaning that a court considering slapping an injunction on the infringer must consider how much damage is really being done ... which in the case of EBay's Buy It Now feature, isn't much, since the company that owns this so-called patent only has it for the purposes of suing other people." From the article: "The high court's decision deals a blow to patent trolls, which are notorious for using the threat of permanent injunction to extort hefty fees in licensing negotiations as well as huge settlements from companies they have accused of infringing. Often, those settlements can be far greater than the value of the infringing technology: Recall the $612.5 million that Canada's Research in Motion forked over to patent-holding company NTP to avoid the shutting down of its popular BlackBerry service."

Evil

[daveschroeder]

This is yet another example of the upcoming "patently" evil Supreme Court, now stacked with far-right extremists and corporatists by BushCo. No checks and balances, controlling all three branches of govern...

Hmm? What's that? This is a good thing, and slashdot likes it?

Oh.

Hooray, Supreme Court!

(The decision was unanimous, by the way.)

Damn it!

[DaHat]

I guess this means my recently granted patent on "a method of maintaining a patent portfolio for the purpose of litigation and licensing" is never going to work out too well given I won't be able to the sort of injunctions I'd want against my targeted patent houses.

Well... back to the drawing board.

Re:Clarity in reporting please.

[eldavojohn]

Yeah, I agree with Whiney.

Has anyone else noticed how "troll" is being used interchangebly with "lawyer" lately?

Come on, let's be fair to the trolls. It's down right insulting to push them that low. You should call someone a lawyer if that's really what they are, don't try to sugar coat it with "troll."

Re:Clarity in reporting please.

[Were-Rabbit]

This is clearly not true.

So, it's patently untrue? :) (Sorry...)

Re:Clarity in reporting please.

[j0nkatz]

Yeah, someone called me a lawyer the other day and went off on his ass.

Only for suing?

[jadavis]

the company that owns this so-called patent only has it for the purposes of suing other people.

Why else would you own a patent?

Patent trolls?

[whitehatlurker]

Sounds good. If we can patent trolls, slashdot could sue digg.

RTFA? What FA?

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is titled "U.S. Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Patent Trolls", not "Slashdot Trolls get Blow Job". Can't blame you for trying, though ;-)

I tried to hold it back, I really did

[Jestrzcap]

Well this is good news. It means that there is less opportunity for RIM jobs.

yeah yeah, mod me down for the horrible-punned-to-death-already.

Re:RIM comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

using RIM as an example of a "victim" in this process is a bit disingenius.

You misspelled both ingenious and ingenuous.

- AC: The spelling nazi.

7-up

[LunaticTippy]

Oh, that explains why 7-up is the uncola instead of the decola.

I always wondered.

Re:Clarity in reporting please.

[ncc74656]

Has anyone else noticed how "troll" is being used interchangebly with "lawyer" lately?

"What do you call 1000 trolls buried up to their necks in sand?"
"A good start."

"Why don't sharks eat trolls?"
"Professional courtesy."

Hey, it does work!